IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.8494 OF 2017(MV-D) BETWEEN 1. MANJAMMA W/O NAGARAJAPPA K.G 49 YEARS.
2. K.G.NAGARAJAPPA @ NAGARAJU, 51 YEARS S/O GUDDADARANGAPPA.
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF KUNTEGOWDANAHALLI KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
(BY SRI.PATIL D. KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. ASHOKA M K 42 YEARS S/O KAMANNA.M R/O MOOGANAHALLI VILLAGE GULIGENAHALLI POST SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 1ST FLOOR, RAJA COMPLEX …APPELLANTS DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD SIRA – 572 137.
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.A.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 R-1 SERVED) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 28.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO. 642/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, JMFC, SIRA PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 28.07.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl.MACT, Sira (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in M.V.C.No.642/2016, awarding a sum of Rs.8,25,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit on account of the death of one K.N.Sridhara in a road traffic accident that occurred on 25.11.2015.
2. Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
3. Both the counsels submit that the occurrence of accident as well as the coverage of the policy of the offending vehicle by the Insurance company are not in dispute and this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income as Rs.7,500/- per month instead of Rs.9,000/- per month as per the Lok Adalat guidelines. It is also contended that the Tribunal committed an error in not adding 40% of future prospects to the notional income without considering or appreciating the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680. It is also contended by him that the Tribunal has failed to consider the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram & Others (2018) 18 SCC 130 and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A.No.1100/2019 & connected matter disposed of on 12.06.2019 in awarding compensation towards ‘loss of consortium’. He therefore requests this Court to enhance the compensation by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance company has supported the impugned judgment and award.
6. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal committed an error in failing to appreciate the Lok Adalat guidelines which stipulate that in respect of an accident that took place in the year 2015, the notional income should be taken as Rs.9,000/- per month. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, the Tribunal ought to have added 40% of future prospects to the notional income of Rs.9,000/- per month. Since the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are his parents, 50% of income of deceased has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Hence, the compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ is reworked as hereunder:-
(Rs.9,000 x 40% = 3,600= Rs.12,600 x 50% = Rs.3,150/- Rs.6,300 x 12 x 17 = Rs.12,85,200/-) Thus the appellants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.12,85,200/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’.
8. Considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Magma’s case and the Division Bench of this Court (supra), the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’. The appellants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
9. Thus, the total compensation would have to be reworked as hereunder:
1 Loss of dependency Rs.12,85,200/-
2 Loss of consortium Rs.60,000/-
3 Funeral and obsequies Rs.15,000/-
4 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Rs.13,75,200/-
Thus, the appellants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.5,50,200/- (Rs.13,75,200/- - Rs.8,25,000/-).
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 28.07.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl.MACT, Sira in M.V.C.No.642/2016 is hereby modified.
(iii) The appellants-claimants are entitled to additional compensation of Rs.5,50,200/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.
(iv) The apportionment and disbursement to be done as per the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
bnv Sd/- JUDGE